My mom had a lot of problems. She did not sleep and she felt exhausted. She was irritable, grumpy, and bitter. She was always sick, until one day, suddenly, she changed.
The situation was the same, but she was different.
One day my dad said to her:
- I've been looking for a job for three months and I haven't found anything, I'm going to have a few beers with friends.
My mom replied:
- It's okay.
My brother said to her:
- Mom, I'm doing poorly in all subjects at the University ...
My mom replied:
- Okay, you will recover, and if you don't, well, you repeat the semester, but you pay the tuition.
My sister said to her:
- Mom, I hit the car.
My mom replied:
- Okay daughter, take it to the workshop, find how to pay and while they fix it, get around by bus or subway.
Her daughter-in-law said to her:
- Mother-in-law, I come to spend a few months with you.
My mom replied:
- Okay, settle in the living room couch and look for some blankets in the closet.
All of us at my mom's house gathered worried to see these reactions.
We suspected that she had gone to the doctor and that she was prescribe some pills of "I don't give a damn about 1000 mg."
She would probably also be ingesting an overdose.
We then proposed to do an "intervention" to my mother to remove her from any possible addiction she had towards some anti-tantrum medication.
But what was not the surprise, when we all gathered around her and my mom explained:
"It took me a long time to realize that each person is responsible for their life, it took me years to discover that my anguish, my mortification, my depression, my courage, my insomnia and my stress, did not solve their problems but aggravated mine.
I am not responsible for the actions of others, but I am responsible for the reactions I express to that.
Therefore, I came to the conclusion that my duty to myself is to remain calm and let each one solve what corresponds to them.
I have taken courses in yoga, meditation, miracles, human development, mental hygiene, vibration and neurolinguistic programming, and in all of them, I found a common denominator: finally they all lead to the same point.
And, it is that I can only interfere with myself, you have all the necessary resources to solve your own lives.
I can only give you my advice if you ask me and it depends on you to follow it or not.
So, from now on, I cease to be: the receptacle of your responsibilities, the sack of your guilt, the laundress of your remorse, the advocate of your faults, the wall of your lamentations, the depositary of your duties, who should solve your problems or spare a tire every time to fulfill your responsibilities.
From now on, I declare all independent and self-sufficient adults.
Everyone at my mom's house was speechless.
From that day on, the family began to function better, because everyone in the house knows exactly what it is that they need to do.
“There is no justification whatever for the widespread belief that variations in the quantity of money must lead to inversely proportionate variations in the objective exchange-value of money, so that, for example, a doubling of the quantity of money must lead to a halving of the purchasing power of money.”
— The Theory of Money and Credit (LvMI) by Ludwig von Mises
https://a.co/bfU0xeM
Up to this point I was understanding what Mises was explaining. But this quote seems to say that an increase in the quantity of money does NOT decrease purchasing power. If I’m understanding this correctly this would be completely contradictory to what I’ve come to understand through my dillegent research.
@Saifedean Ammous could you shed some scholarly light on this concept please. I really would appreciate your thoughts on this.
“An increase in a community’s stock of money always means an increase in the amount of money held by a number of economic agents, whether these are the issuers of fiat or credit money or the producers of the substance of which commodity money is made. For these persons, the ratio between the demand for money and the stock of it is altered; they have a relative superfluity of money and a relative shortage of other economic goods. The immediate consequence of both circumstances is that the marginal utility to them of the monetary unit diminishes. This necessarily influences their behaviour in the market. They are in a stronger position as buyers. They will now express in the market their demand for the objects they desire more intensively than before; they are able to offer more money for the commodities that they wish to acquire. It will be the obvious result of this that the prices of the goods concerned will rise, and that the objective exchange-value of money will fall in comparison. But this rise of prices will by no means be restricted to the market for those goods that are desired by those who originally have the new money at their disposal. In addition, those who have brought these goods to market will have their incomes and their proportionate stocks of money increased and, in their turn, will be in a position to demand more intensively the goods they want, so that these goods will also rise in price. Thus the increase of prices continues, having a diminishing effect, until all commodities, some to a greater and some to a lesser extent, are reached by it. ”
— The Theory of Money and Credit (LvMI) by Ludwig von Mises
https://a.co/4tUcDaJ
